Gambar halaman
PDF
ePub

The scope of bargaining determines what are the working conditions that both labor and management have an obligation to bargain about, and that is a very important issue with respect to any a or relations statute.

One of the next issues, and very briefly, that it is important to consider, is how do you enforce the rights that you have as a labor organization or how do you enforce the rights that you have as management.

The history of labor relations is that you have a neutral third party that is going to be in some part of the process, so that that party would not be considered to be part of either labor or manage

ment.

The role of the Federal Labor Relations Authority, the National Labor Relations Board, is to act as that neutral third party that is not considered in the eyes of either labor or management to be a part of either one of those two groups.

There are many rights that Federal employees have, other than just the collective bargaining rights under the Federal Service Labor Management Statute, such as the right to representation at meetings, right to representation at various types of things that labor and management do together.

These rights would also be incurred in how you enforce those rights should management or should labor not comply with them. This also should be considered.

The last issue, I would just like to very briefly name a number of things that, if you were to adopt the Federal service system, you would expect to be able to handle.

One would be investigation of petitions filed by unions seeking to represent employees in various congressional offices.

You would have to be able to conduct hearings on a variety of questions concerning who should be in those bargaining units, and what should those bargaining units look like. Conduct or supervise the elections. Once you have decided what the bargaining units look like, you would have to have a neutral conduct and supervise the elections and certify the results.

You would then have to consider the role of what can be bargained. If you have the current Federal system, a major issue is what is negotiable and what is not negotiable, because we have these very significant management rights that management has, given to them by statute.

Next, you would have to determine how you would resolve bargaining impasses where this is not a question of whether you can bargain or not; this is a question where simply labor and management do not agree. How would you resolve those issues?

The next is how would you investigate and conduct hearings on violations of these obligations that you place on both labor and management, and how would you carry forth that responsibility.

And the last, under the Federal system, when labor and management go to arbitration, there is an availability which is a unique Federal process, to be able to appeal a decision of the arbitrator to a third party, to determine whether the arbitrator's decision was valid.

Now all of these would be the types of issues, the types of proc

ute, to ensure that you would comply with the provisions as enacted.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman GLENN. If we had the Federal Labor Management Relations Statute applied-let's say we did not give an exemption to Congress, but we were just going to apply it across the boardwhat would the requirements be?

What types of employees would have collective bargaining rights? Would Members' personal offices, that we mentioned several times this morning, would they have bargaining rights if we just applied this without giving an exemption?

Mr. SWERDZEWSKI. Well personnel, for instance, would not have. But the personal office of the Members, what we would have to look at would be the actual staffs themselves. I would imagine a certain number of staff members in a Senator or Congressman's personal office would be confidential employees because a Senator would be the person who is the hiring official and would be dealing with personnel matters.

Other employees within that office would be management officials because they deal in making policy.

Chairman GLENN. Now how do you make certain, under the Federal Labor Management Relations Statute, how do you ensure that collective bargaining does not infringe on the policy making function?

Mr. SWERDZEWSKI. First of all, the policy makers are exempt from being in bargaining units. So first, we do not deal with even the policy makers because they are not eligible to be members of a union.

The second issue, frankly is that what we do is, we limit the scope of what bargaining is because we say they can only bargaining about conditions of employment.

A policy may not deal with conditions of employment of bargaining unit employees. Policy may be beyond the scope of what the collective bargaining is eligible to do under the Federal sector statute.

However, policy that applies to the working conditions may be a bargainable issue, but policy that applies to the work of the agency may not be a bargainable issue.

Chairman GLENN. Would it be different under the National Labor Relations Act?

Mr. SWERDZEWSKI. Well, the National Labor Relations Act, its scope of bargaining would be significantly different with respect to the issues that labor and management could bargain about.

And also the definition of the bargaining units might be different because they do not include the exhaustive list of exemptions that we have in the Federal sector.

Chairman GLENN. OK. Good.

TESTIMONY OF H. BERRIEN ZETTLER,1 ACTING DIRECTOR OF COMPLIANCE PROGRAMS, OSHA

Mr. ZETTLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am pleased to appear before you today to discuss how the Occupational Safety and Health requirements would apply to the legislative branch if it were covered under the Occupational Safety and Health Act.

I will begin by describing OSHA's overall responsibility for workplace safety and health. OSHA was established pursuant to the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970. This statute grants the Agency broad authority to promote the safety and health of employees on the job.

The OSHA Act authorizes OSHA to promulgate occupational safety and health standards, and to conduct inspections to enforce those standards, by issuing citations, proposing monetary penalties, and requiring employers to abate hazards.

In addition to the requirement for complying with standards, employers must comply with section 5(a)(1) of the Act, which requires that all employers provide workplaces free from recognized hazards.

The act gives OSHA the authority to work with employers and employees in reducing workplace dangers, and provides for a variety of consultative, educational and voluntary programs designed to assist employers and employees in recognizing and abating hazards.

The act encourages the States to conduct their own Federally-approved job safety and health programs. Twenty-five States or jurisdictions currently operate OSHA programs, which are monitored by OSHA to ensure that they are at least as effective as the Federal program.

Employees of the executive branch of the government are protected by section 19 of the Act, and Executive Order 12196, which, among other requirements, mandates that all Federal agencies operate a safety and health program and comply with all OSHA standards.

As you are aware, the legislative branch is excluded from coverage under the OSHA Act. But we have indications that there are workplace hazards in congressional offices and other workplaces of the legislative branch.

In Ŏctober 1992, the General Accounting Office issued a report entitled, "Uneven Protections Provided to Congressional Employ

ees.

GAO's safety and health consultant found serious hazards in virtually all of the congressional offices which were visited as well as at the Government Printing Office.

Chairman GLENN. What kinds of hazards were those? Do you recall what they listed?

Mr. ZETTLER. Yes, sir. They included improper placement of automatic sprinklers, lack of protection from excessive noise, exposed blades on power saws and machines, poor ventilation, and improper labels on chemicals.

They also I think, as you know, probably found one of the biggest difficulties with the congressional coverage is that there is no sin

gle office or official who had full responsibility for protecting safety and health of congressional employees.

The legislative branch includes a variety of workplace environments, from white collar office settings to industrial and construction operations.

The GAO report which I mentioned indicates that hazards found in congressional workplaces are very much the same as those found by OSHA when it conducts inspections in the private sector, or when it oversees workplaces of the executive branch of the govern

ment.

OSHA has found that, in office environments, employees have been exposed to electrical dangers, indoor air problems poor housekeeping, excessive noise, inaccessible fire extinguishers, and entrances and exits which may be blocked.

Although the agency does not have regulations requiring a specific amount of space for each employee, we do enforce rules requiring that entrances and exits be accessible, and that the capacity of each exit be sufficient to accommodate the number of occupants who would use that exit.

A safe office environment depends on a number of factors. Among other things, employers should ensure that employees are trained to respond safely during a fire or evacuation that exits and walkways should be clear of materials that would prevent access; storage boxes and all office supplies should be stored properly so that they do not fall on workers; electrical wiring should be sufficient to handle the demand load; and safe work practices should be used when employees are lifting boxes or other heavy items.

In addition to the hundreds of offices in Congress, the legislative branch includes employees who perform industrial and construction work.

These workplaces, which are generally more hazardous than the office environment, include such functions as carpentry, construction, electrical work, loading docks, and print shops.

In the private sector, these types of worksites are covered by OSHA's Standard for General Industry as well as the agency's standards on construction.

Standards frequently cited in these workplaces include requirements for guarding machines, protecting workers from falls, informing employees of hazardous chemicals, and rules maintaining safe work practices around electricity.

In addition to its existing rules, OSHA is moving to address hazards which affect a wide variety of workplaces in this Nation and which are a concern to the legislative branch as well. On April 5, the Agency issued a proposal to regulate indoor air quality and environmental tobacco smoke.

Indoor air pollutants can cause headaches respiratory infections, and nausea. Exposure to environmental tobacco smoke has been linked to lung cancer and heart disease.

OSHA is also working on an ergonomics protection standard to combat the growing number of musculoskeletal disorders contracted at the workplace.

These problems are expected to increase over the next several decades, if left unregulated.

I hope that the information I have provided about OSHA coverage is helpful to the Committee, and I would answer any questions you have about the agency.

Chairman GLENN. Thank you, Mr. Zettler. Thank you very much. Have you ever done any surveys around the Capitol? You heard me mention that a little while ago here. Have you ever been invited in to do any guest surveys around the area?

Mr. ZETTLER. There have been a very few circumstances where individual Congressmen have invited us, or Senators, I believe, but certainly Congressmen who have invited us to come in and look at their particular office space.

We have not been invited to do a more comprehensive safety and health survey.

Chairman GLENN Well would you have the people to do a survey, say, if we wanted to do a survey of the Capitol itself?

Mr. ZETTLER. We would have the expertise to do that. We might not have the resources to do it. It would be a very demanding resource job.

Chairman GLENN. Well, it would. You know, we keep hearing how many billions of dollars it is going to cost-if we put a law like this through-how many billions of dollars it is going to require to bring the Capitol it self up to speed, and so on.

Now, we heard testimony a little while ago that that is not going to be necessary, that everything is in great shape.

I am not quite sure it is in that great shape when I go through some of the building areas over there. I do not think I would have to be an OSHA inspector to pick out some things that appear a little unsafe to me from time to time.

But I might want to talk to you about that later.

Mr. ZETTLER. Yes, sir.

Chairman GLENN. There is no minimum amount of office space required under OSHA, is that correct? Is that something that came out of GSA by their standards, or is it just an objective, or where did all this come from, that we are supposed to have 100 or 150 or 140 square feet per employee, or whatever it is?

Do you know where that came from?

Mr. ZETTLER. Yes, and my understanding is that that is the GSA requirement. OSHA

Chairman GLENN. A requirement or just an objective?

Mr. ZETTLER. It may be an objective. There are certainly union contracts that deal with the amount of space that various employees must be provided under the contract.

I presume that those contracts are in large part based upon GSA recommendations. There are no requirements as to minimum spaces in the OSHA regulations as they currently exist.

Chairman GLENN. OK. Do you think that it would be necessary to build additional office space in order to comply with OSHA requirements, here on Capitol Hill?

Mr. ZETTLER. I do not have sufficient expertise to answer that question. I would be surprised, however, that considerable additional space would be required, in view of the fact that there are

« SebelumnyaLanjutkan »